Hi,
I believe that the cbook.is_scalar function has a bug:
In [19]: cbook.is_scalar('abc')
Out[19]: 1
I believe it should be:
def is_scalar(obj):
'return true if *obj* is not string like and is not iterable'
return not is_string_like(obj) and not iterable(obj)
Cheers,
David
···
--
**********************************
David M. Kaplan
Charge de Recherche 1
Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement
Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale
av. Jean Monnet
B.P. 171
34203 Sete cedex
France
Phone: +33 (0)4 99 57 32 27
Fax: +33 (0)4 99 57 32 95
http://www.ur097.ird.fr/team/dkaplan/index.html
**********************************
Yep, good catch. I committed this fix to 5822
JDH
···
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:04 AM, David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@...622...> wrote:
Hi,
I believe that the cbook.is_scalar function has a bug:
In [19]: cbook.is_scalar('abc')
Out[19]: 1
I believe it should be:
def is_scalar(obj):
'return true if *obj* is not string like and is not iterable'
return not is_string_like(obj) and not iterable(obj)
Hi,
Almost:
In [3]: cbook.is_scalar((0,1))
Out[3]: True
That should be an "and" not an "or".
Cheers,
David
···
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 08:16 -0500, John Hunter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:04 AM, David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@...622...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that the cbook.is_scalar function has a bug:
>
> In [19]: cbook.is_scalar('abc')
> Out[19]: 1
>
> I believe it should be:
>
> def is_scalar(obj):
> 'return true if *obj* is not string like and is not iterable'
> return not is_string_like(obj) and not iterable(obj)
Yep, good catch. I committed this fix to 5822
JDH
--
**********************************
David M. Kaplan
Charge de Recherche 1
Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement
Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale
av. Jean Monnet
B.P. 171
34203 Sete cedex
France
Phone: +33 (0)4 99 57 32 27
Fax: +33 (0)4 99 57 32 95
http://www.ur097.ird.fr/team/dkaplan/index.html
**********************************
OK, I'll leave the final fix to you.....
JDH
···
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:53 AM, David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@...622...> wrote:
That should be an "and" not an "or"